United States v. Francisco Saldana

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 22, 2022
• Docket: 21-10634
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 20-14490 Date Filed: 03/22/2022 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14490 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO SALDANA, a.k.a. Frank, a.k.a. Frank Rivera, a.k.a. Warren G, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:95-cr-00605-PAS-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14490 Date Filed: 03/22/2022 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 20-14490

No. 21-10634 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO SALDANA, a.k.a. Frank, a.k.a. Frank Rivera, a.k.a. Warren G, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:95-cr-00605-PAS-1 ____________________

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-14490 Date Filed: 03/22/2022 Page: 3 of 3

20-14490 Opinion of the Court 3

Francisco Saldana appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act. He argues that the district court erred in concluding that he was not eligible to receive a lower sentence under the First Step Act. The government concedes “that the district court’s conclu- sion that it had no authority to reduce Saldana’s sentence was er- roneous.” After a thorough review of the record, we agree with the parties that the district court erred in concluding that Saldana was ineligible for a reduced sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act. We REVERSE the order denying Saldana’s motion to reduce his sentence and REMAND for the district court to exercise its dis- cretion and decide whether to reduce Saldana’s sentences for his crack cocaine convictions.1

1 This appeal was originally scheduled for oral argument but was removed from the oral argument calendar by unanimous agreement of the panel under 11th Cir. R. 34-3(f).